Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 How about the FACT that she did talk about specific data in the paper. Talked about how Bigfoot is a human hybrid, sequencing of 3 genomes, modern human mother. Those are pretty darn specific things. That is summary, not data (the sequences and codes that everyone keeps harping about wanting "NOW NOW NOW"). Mulder you really really need to stop using the word fact because things like the above don't support anything factual about what you are saying. I know how to use the word fact just fine, thank you. You are and have been using the word fact to mean "fact in addition to whatever else you consider acceptable". No, I've been using it to mean "that which is factual". You on the other hand are trying to ignore the facts in their context and try to quote mine your way out of the corner that the Skeptics have painted themselves into She broke protocol by establishing the sasquatch preservation group. In doing that she declared that the creature existed before her data was peer reviewed. Show me where there is anything in the rules that says she cannot start such a group and show me where that has one iota to do with the DATA in her study (which is what we are talking about). Are you actually attempting to state that she cannot say a single word of any sort about BF w/o 'breaking protocol'? I fail to see where or how Ketchum has been transparent in any way. I've only heard fantastic claims. What if Ketchum never publishes? What if she branches out into sasquatch merchandising and DVD sales of said report instead? (with no backing data offered to date, one must question what has been reported) I said she was as transparent as she is permitted to be w/o breaking protocol. What part of "she cannot release her data w/o jeopardizing her paper's chances with the jorunal" is so difficult for people to understand? She's said all she can. More than she should have from a PR perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Show me where there is anything in the rules that says she cannot start such a group and show me where that has one iota to do with the DATA in her study (which is what we are talking about). Are you actually attempting to state that she cannot say a single word of any sort about BF w/o 'breaking protocol'? I said she was as transparent as she is permitted to be w/o breaking protocol. What part of "she cannot release her data w/o jeopardizing her paper's chances with the jorunal" is so difficult for people to understand? She's said all she can. More than she should have from a PR perspective. Yes, that is what I am saying, the conclusions are a part of the data that will be peer reviewed, you just contradicted yourself. I stand corrected assuming she established the preservation group, but as others have pointed out, she took an active stance in that group and supported it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 That is summary, not data (the sequences and codes that everyone keeps harping about wanting "NOW NOW NOW"). Show me where there is anything in the rules that says she cannot start such a group and show me where that has one iota to do with the DATA in her study (which is what we are talking about). Mulder you make it too easy. Why don't you show us a single example from a scientific journal that says a submitter is allowed to talk about the SUMMARY of the manuscript but not the DATA. This is a perfect example of how you like to create your own version of a FACT. You are constantly changing the rules so that anything Melba does is ok. So go ahead and find an example for us where a scientific journal supports your definition of what the embargo policy is stating she can discuss SUMMARY but not DATA. Go for it!! GAME SET MATCH!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I don't know why people keep claiming that MK is being maliciously picked on. Her actions, associations, frequency of hype and promises, etc, are all relative to who she is, and her abilities. She suffers from bad decision making, and is hyper-emotional, IMO. Maybe my perception of how doctors act may be skewed by growing up with an Ivy League doctor as a brother, but she seems really wishy-washy and touchy-feely, which strikes me as odd, based on her credentials. The one thing that keeps jumping off the page at me, is how she feels the need to address leaks, and naysayers. Who cares? What do they even matter? If you have your facts straight, you have no reason to even address anything/anybody. Unfortunately, the only facts that she's given anybody shed a somewhat negative light on her. In your opinion. Yes, that is what I am saying, the conclusions are a part of the data that will be peer reviewed, you just contradicted yourself. No, I did not, and if you've been following this thread all along, you would know that. Nothing prevents her from speaking in general terms about the fact that she is doing a study or generally how things are going so long as she does not disclose the actual data. Several people have made that clear who have scientific publishing experience. From a PR perspective, she should have kept her mouth shut until she had a pub date. Multiple people, including myself have freely stipulated to that. But this "show us NOW NOW NOW NOW" BS is out of line, and she is doing the right thing by ignoring it while the review process is ongoing. But you can't "win for losing" with Skeptics, can you? Mulder you make it too easy. Why don't you show us a single example from a scientific journal that says a submitter is allowed to talk about the SUMMARY of the manuscript but not the DATA. This is a perfect example of how you like to create your own version of a FACT. You are constantly changing the rules so that anything Melba does is ok. So go ahead and find an example for us where a scientific journal supports your definition of what the embargo policy is stating she can discuss SUMMARY but not DATA. Go for it!! GAME SET MATCH!!! Several people with scientific publishing experience here in this very thread have said that generalized discussion of studies is perfectly permissible, within the community at symposiums, for example. This was said not by proponents, but by Skeptics denouncing her "lack of transparency" at the time. So volley/return...ball's back in your court... And "the game" continues. (And no, I'm not trolling through 427 pages looking for the specific quotes, do you own dang homework.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Nothing prevents her from speaking in general terms about the fact that she is doing a study or generally how things are going so long as she does not disclose the actual data. But according to you a SUMMARY of that DATA is totally fine. Which is it ? Your moving the ball all over the playing field. Edited January 14, 2013 by rockiessquatching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I don't know why people keep claiming that MK is being maliciously picked on. Her actions, associations, frequency of hype and promises, etc, are all relative to who she is, and her abilities. She suffers from bad decision making, and is hyper-emotional, IMO. Maybe my perception of how doctors act may be skewed by growing up with an Ivy League doctor as a brother, but she seems really wishy-washy and touchy-feely, which strikes me as odd, based on her credentials. The one thing that keeps jumping off the page at me, is how she feels the need to address leaks, and naysayers. Who cares? What do they even matter? If you have your facts straight, you have no reason to even address anything/anybody. Unfortunately, the only facts that she's given anybody shed a somewhat negative light on her. It's such a different world today, especially when it comes to news . Stories are huge in a matter of of hours instead of days. With that said, if rumors or allegations are not rebutted, they are taken as fact. She has said many,many times that if it wasn't for leaked formation, no one would even know about this study until it was published. Doctors are human, all unique in their own way, and are not impervious to the challenges of every day life, they say and do things that wish were handled differently as we all do. People are hyper critical and extremely opinionated about every word she says, I can't even fathom how much stress this whole study has put on her life. One thing I am positive about, if she could go back in time, she would want nothing to do with the whole study, and who could blame her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 In your opinion. No, I did not, and if you've been following this thread all along, you would know that. Nothing prevents her from speaking in general terms about the fact that she is doing a study or generally how things are going so long as she does not disclose the actual data. Several people have made that clear who have scientific publishing experience. But you can't "win for losing" with Skeptics, can you? Win what? Do you reckon she asked the publisher if it was OK to go on C2C and Good Morning America to discuss the results? I bet not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) She has said many,many times that if it wasn't for leaked formation, no one would even know about this study until it was published. People are hyper critical and extremely opinionated about every word she says, I can't even fathom how much stress this whole study has put on her life. One thing I am positive about, if she could go back in time, she would want nothing to do with the whole study, and who could blame her. On the first statement - as I recall she went on C2C in late 2009 asking for samples and also stating she had identified Bigfoot in the samples she already had. On statement 2: The BF world may only be a microcosm of things to come.    There has been adequate opinion from all quarters on very little real information. When the opinionated are all supporters, guess we can't call them hypercritical, but I do see words like "beeleevers." And when the opinions are based on the contents of the study what will we call them? On statement 3. I seriously doubt that, but you do say you are positive, so I don't know and defer to you. To me her actions don't seem to support that. Maybe she would go back and do it differently? I could make some suggestions, but don't want to be hypercritical or too opinionated...... My Deity! This thread is over 400 pages, and just a week or so ago 300... Edited January 14, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 @apehuman her public appearance in november 09' was the josh gates sample. nothing about the study and she didn't ask for samples. "August, 2010: Dr. Melba Ketchum appears on Coast to Coast A.M. with Dave Paulides. During the last hour of the program, Dr. Ketchum reported on ongoing DNA testing of possible Bigfoot hair samples, some of which have a combination of human and animal attributes, and are considered anomalous or unknown. She and her team are in the process of preparing a peer reviewed paper that will reveal their complete findings." this was after the leak. she has said herself would not have done the study . My Deity! This thread is over 400 pages, and just a week or so ago 300... November 2012 24 page 300 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 <p> I can understand a bit of showboating, everyone wants their due credit. The problem with that is the lack of credibility, showboating is just that, so far nothing credible from the showboating has been produced but rumor and drama. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Zigo you seem more up on keeping the details than me. I became aware of the study in '09 as the Searching for Bigfoot website posted her address and goals. If it was late 2010 with Paulides (I thought I listened to that, but maybe not, seems there were two shows or pod casts about that time) I still wonder what leak you refer to? Stubstad came out in 2011 early spring. As did Justin Smeja. Leak might be a strong statement for them, b'c we are told they did not have NDAs going forward....? I did listen to one post press release interview (C2C) and heard her say "wouldn't do it again." That statement seems in contradiction to continued events, whether heading up a protection club, or future plans with giant skulls. She can still change her course. Producing a study as a scientist (for hire) is one thing, a planned future that relies on that study another. She shows every sign of planning to continue. Zigopex, I hope this study gets published, I hope she meets the commitment/promises she made to those many still waiting. But, I don't think she has behaved in a manner that elicits sympathy for her plight. JMHO Edited January 14, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Wouldn't it just make total sense for the paper to be published on Thursday and Ketchum to have her moment on the same day that Lance Armstrong's Oprah interview comes out? Who ever thought Bigfoot would get bigfooted? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Melba is really pushing this petition now, this feels very close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I agree. The tipping point has just about been reached. The reaction of the world, as it unfolds, will be very interesting to observe. Will Finding Bigfoot be cancelled? It should be since Dr. K already found him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Melba is really pushing this petition now, this feels very close. Source? I think this is the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts